Laws irrelevant and intrusive
TWO themes dominate political argument in Britain today. The first—with which we have become familiar over the years—is that of economic survival. The second —the encroachment o the state, and of the servants of the state, on the liberty of the individual—has begun to agitate the public more recently. As the House of Commons goes into recess, and as we look forward with some trepidation to another heavy programme of legislation in the autumn, it seems likely that the two themes will remain dominant. Are they connected ?
Certainly the search for economic survival has involved Considerable impositions on all sections of the comInunity. In every area of legislation, however, it is fair to say that not since the very early days of Mr Heath's administration has a government passed laws which increase rather than decrease liberty for the people as a Whole. During his brief period as Prime Minister Mr Callaghan has constantly exhorted all of us to direct our energies towards the end of economic survival. But, While no class and few individuals would grudge their s,upPort to any government clearly dedicated to that end, It Is plain that Mr Callaghan and his ministers (and their Party) are demanding a great deal more than sacrifice. . The Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding Industries awaits both Report and Third Reading in the "'3.use of Commons. It will require vast expenditure, at a time when everybody is being asked to economise. If it passes into law, sections of those industries at present beneficial to shareholders and employees alike will fall under the control of bureaucrats. The Dockwork Regulation Bill, which restricts the rights of inland workers for the benefit of inefficient dockers is likewise destructive both of fair competition and of liberty. The title of the Weights and Measures (No 2) Bill conceals the intention of the Government to compel (again at considerable cost) the introduction of metrication.
Nor are these the only steps which the executive is taking to increase its power at the expense of the citizen. If all goes well for the Government October will see the adoption of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill; of the Bill to impose comprehensive education throughout the state educational system ; of the Bill to prohibit hare coursing; and of the Bill to abolish tied cottages. No doubt some of these measures can be defended on their merits. Taken as a group they have two characteristics: they restrict the individual; and they exalt the power of the state.
It is, moreover, astonishing that a government which ceaselessly proclaims its dedication to national economic survival should be able to find the time and the energy for so many irrelevant and intrusive pieces of legislation. It is as though Mr Callaghan and his colleagues are determined to strangle the rights of the individual come what may. And because this will be the clear result of the implementation of their programme—even if it is not a clear intention—it is worth suggesting that it may bear some relationship to economic survival as well. If independence is taken away, and ingenuity crushed, even economic survival may not be attainable.
